Judgment : Prasanna B. Varale, J. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 2. The petitioner has raised the objection before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Umrer, submitting therein that the respondent No.1, who was Police Patil of Village Wasi, has not only actively participated in the political activities but also contested the election of Wasi Sahakari Sanstha as a sponsored candidate of political party. It was also submitted that the respondent No.1 also took active participation in canvassing the candidature of his brother in the election. In the reply to the show cause notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondent No.1 took a defence that he has contested the election for the Managing Committee member and got elected. It was submitted that there is no prohibition to contest election of the society for the Police Patil. The Sub Divisional Magistrate finding favour with the submission and observing that respondent No.1 being Police Patil though prohibited to take part in political activities, participated in the election and as such the Sub Divisional Magistrate accepted the contention of the objector/petitioner and by order dated 15th December, 1994, directed the removal of the service of respondent No.1. The order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur in the appeal bearing Appeal Case No. 35/1994. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 07th August, 1995, allowed the appeal and thereby the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding dismissal of respondent No.1 was set aside. 3. The short question before us is as to whether the appellate authority has considered the moot question of the prohibition on the Police Patil in taking active participation in the political activities and/or contesting election. The perusal of the order reflects that the Additional Commissioner has lost the sight of the facts and the order reflects the non application of mind of the authority passing the impugned order. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was Police Patil of village Wasi. The relevant rules in this behalf are the Maharashtra Village Police Patil Act, 1967 and the appointment of the Police Patil as well as the regulation of the duties of Police Patil, are stated in the said Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was Police Patil of village Wasi. The relevant rules in this behalf are the Maharashtra Village Police Patil Act, 1967 and the appointment of the Police Patil as well as the regulation of the duties of Police Patil, are stated in the said Act. We may state here that though the Sub Divisional Magistrate has referred to as Section 12 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967, the relevant provision is Order 12 passed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967. It reads thus:- “12. Application of Bombay Civil Services Rules, etc.:- The State Government may, by an order in writing, apply to Police Patils such of the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules or the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, as are not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder.” 5. It will be also useful to refer that the said orders are passed in exercise of powers conferred by sub Section (3) of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967. The relevant provision reads thus:- “5. (1) The State Government shall appoint one or more Police Patils for a village or group of villages. (2) … (3) The recruitment, remuneration and other conditions of service of Police Patils shall be such as may, from time to time, be determined by the State Government by general or special order.” The Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 came into force on 12th July, 1979 and the said Rules now govern the field. It will be also useful to refer Section 1(3) of the said Rules. The same reads thus:- “1. (3) Except as otherwise provided by or under these rules, these rules (and also any rules and orders in relation to matters covered by these rules duly approved by Government from time to time and not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules) apply to all persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Maharashtra. Provided that, only Rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 19, 29 and 30 shall apply to persons appointed as Police Patils under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967.” In view of Section 1(3), Rule 5 applies to the persons appointed as Police Patil under the Maharashtra Village Police Act and Rule 5 reads thus:- “5. Provided that, only Rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 19, 29 and 30 shall apply to persons appointed as Police Patils under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967.” In view of Section 1(3), Rule 5 applies to the persons appointed as Police Patil under the Maharashtra Village Police Act and Rule 5 reads thus:- “5. Taking part in politics and elections. - (1) No Government Servant shall be a member of or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in politics, nor shall he take part in, or subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.” 6. It will be useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Krushna Bose .v. Binod Kanungo and others (reported in AIR 1954 SC 202 ). The object behind such prohibition is stated by the Apex Court in the following words, “The policy of the law is to keep Government servants aloof from politics and also to protect them from being imposed on by those with influence or in positions of authority and power, and to prevent the machinery of Government from being used in furtherance of a candidate's return.” 7. It will, be also useful to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Gangaram Topaji Hupade .v. Digamber Sadashio Kanwale and another (reported in 1991 Mh.L.J., 1204), wherein this Court has considered the aspect that, (i) whether the Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act is a government servant; and (ii) holder of civil post under State. This Court in the said judgment has observed as under:- “26. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, reads as under:- “Except as otherwise provided by or under these rules, these rules (and also any rules and orders in relation to matters covered by these rules duly approved by Governmentfrom time to time and not inconsistent with provisions of these rules) apply to all persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Maharashtra : Provided that, only rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 19, 29 and 30 shall apply to persons appointed as Police Patils under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967.” 27. The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is also relevant. The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is also relevant. Section 14(i) of the said Act provides that no person shall be a member of a panchayat or continue as such, who “is a servant of the Government or a servant of any local authority”. Explanation 3 provides that for the purposes of the above provision Police Patil shall be deemed to be a government servant. 28. The term “Government Servant” is not defined either by the Constitution or by the AT Act or by the General Clauses Act and hence recourse to the basic concepts of the relationship between master and servant is inevitable. On the total conspectus of all the above provisions, it seems clear to us that all the attributes of that relationship exist in ample measure between a Police Patil and the Government and that he is clearly a holder of a civil post under the State created by the statute for performance of State functions and which exists apart from its holder. State selects and appoints him, exercises administrative and disciplinary control over him and his work, and pays his remuneration. The only features which, it is said, militates against the relationship and status of the post, are about his meagre remuneration described as honorarium (clause 7 of the Order) and his right to cultivate land or engage in local business or trade in the village in such manner as is not detrimental to the performance of his duties (clause 8 of the Order). In our view, these features are not decisive of the matter. Settled legal position is that a post outside regularly constituted services need neither carry regular salary nor be a whole time employment. In this connection the case of The State of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884 , may be noticed. It related to a Mauzadar (revenue contractor) in Assam Valley, appointed and governed under the State's Revenue Regulations. His duties appear to be an admixture of duties of a Police Patil and a Patwari in the Maharashtra State. Peculiar features are that his successor is ordinarily selected from among the members of his family and if suitable heir is minor, the post may be kept open for him for certain period during which an agent can be appointed to perform the duties. Peculiar features are that his successor is ordinarily selected from among the members of his family and if suitable heir is minor, the post may be kept open for him for certain period during which an agent can be appointed to perform the duties. Mauzadar is not in whole time employment, he draws no fixed salary but is entitled to only commission. Despite these features, the Supreme Court held that he is a Government Servant holding a civil post. The ratio of that decision, therefore, applies with greater rigour to a Police Patil.” 8. Taking into consideration the settled position of law, it is clear that the respondent No.1, who was Police Patil of village Wasi, was holder of civil post and was prohibited to take any active participation in politics and election. The facts on record clearly indicate that in spite of such prohibition, the respondent No.1 was found not only taking active participation in politics but also contesting the election and further taking active role in canvassing the candidature and it also reveals from the record that the respondent No.1 – Police Patil was sponsored by a political party in the election. 9. Taking overall view of the matter, we find that this material aspect is totally overlooked by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and as such the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Commissioner is erroneous and is unsustainable. In our opinion, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal Case No. 35/1994 dated 07.08.1995 is quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 15th December, 1994 is thus restored. The petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.